Reforming
Religion
Malcolm Rae
Philosophy 336
University of Alberta, Augustana Faculty
April
26, 2005 (revised in 2006)
Religion, to be meaningful, must be understood in terms of human relations - and I mean human relations in our current time. The past should not be relied on so heavily for “perfect” examples that we forget our own creativity, talent, and spirit of the present. Religion must be true in immediate purpose, rather than merely a bundle of history and useless tradition. To have purpose is to have vision, and to have vision is to have heart. To have heart is to care. Imagine Christians being so fascinated with the past, history, and a “Biblical” world-view, that they forget their own present existence on some level. Unfortunately, this condition is actually the way it is for some Christians (and for other “religious” people too - notice some Muslims, for example, who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to retain an alienating practice: wife beating). Sadly, some Christians are so caught up with their traditions and institutions that they have become ignorant of their present existence. My point is the same problem of “Christendom” that Soren Kirkegaard noticed in the nineteenth century is still here. There are “religious” people who are not seriously acknowledging their current state in time. In trying to be devote, in trying to intently read and follow the Bible (in a severely repetitive way), they have become undevote and more like cult-like rather than religious. There must be distinction from cult as opposed to religion. It is as though some intent people would happily hide from contemporary times - even though these times are their own living age and present life. This is “cult-like” rather than religious because it is confining rather than freeing, whereas religion is freeing because it is truly caring. Regrettably, there are some who are supposedly “deeply religious” in Christian circles who frown upon drums or electric guitars in their church, when such instruments are, actually, a meaningful part of our present generation. There are others who live in isolated communities. Further, there are “religious” parents who do not live in isolated communities, yet still force their cult-like deception on their children - refusing to allow them their dreams to become successful, contemporary, artist because of “godly conviction” and because “Christians are not to be worldly.” Such people are trapped in cult lifestyle - not religious. Cultism in its abstract strictness is what causes alienation, not religion. Ludwig Feuerbach was wrong when he stated that it is religion that alienates people. I claim that it is rather a cult-like influence (like a disease - being, in part, a kind of crippling “theology” - a perversion of the divine, rather than a healing study) that alienates people - not religion. Secondly, I claim that the German idealists (Imanual Kant, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling and George Hegel) have done people a disservice by lacking the emotion, intensity and spirit that is known to be in professional artists. This intensity that is driven by care shall not underestimate the great hunger of a needy world (a hunger that is not only for food, but for artistic value and *healing worth). Philosophers must now become religious people and professional artists who do care (personally and directly) - not just scientists, conceptualists, politicians, psychologists, or speculative dreamers.
Religiousness is heart. Heart is what attracts people - not history itself and mere impersonal, conceptual, ideas. That is why they chose to ignore some philosophies and cults. That is why philosophers like Kierkegaard are especially appreciated as opposed to other philosophers of the nineteenth century. He is fresh. He is open. He speaks in first-person. He emphasizes the importance of the individual and choice rather than confining convention. He addresses issues of the heart that other philosophers of the nineteenth century might disapprove of because of their emotional intensity. Questions like: what am I to do? Unfortunately, other philosophers are not particularly interested in the individual and choice; nevertheless, I will entertain that there is, at least, some value in the German idealists because they emphasize universal concepts, particular ideologies that enable people to understand and appreciate (to some degree) ethical value.
Correct religious concepts are practical and applicable to all, but these concepts should be especially expressed in a heart-felt, personal, direct, artistic and free (liberating) manner so that they are cherished. In attempting to demonstrate all-inclusive correctness, Kant’s philosophy parallels religion to some degree, in that it attempts to show right concepts that can be applied to all. However, although Kant is credited for synthesizing rational and empirical knowledge and discovering particular conceptual findings, his mistakes include the “thing-in-itself,” an unreliable dualism (inconsistent split between true knowledge and everything else), and the fact that the existence of a priori forms and categories cannot be proven in his own terms. The “thing-in-itself” is a strange phrase because it suggests that there is a “thing” that is outside the self. This makes no sense from an empirical standpoint. Kant’s dualism and his suggestion of a priori forms and categories also do not make sense empirically because these are rationalized apart from the self; consequently, this means things apart from, and outside, the senses. Again, empirically, this is does not make sense. On the one hand, Kant’s understanding of the rational and empirical blended into conceptual categories of the mind is limiting because it is so persistently general (so general to the point of avoiding human individuality). On the other hand, on some level, human individuality is not an issue for Kant (if at all) because he was interested in finding universals - which can be applied to all (no wonder he has to be so general) humans. To some extent, Kant is a conscientious lawmaker. He does, at least, appear to be one who is interested in human equality and law. However, in a way, it is as though humans do not have freedom of expression if all they are actually doing is conceptualizing reality as opposed to demonstrating their creativity, individuality and distinction. Fortunately, the “I,” along with a new emphasis on “other,” become of particular importance for later philosophers in the nineteenth century.
Because religion is something personal, and not distant, it has deep subjective importance. Fichte’s subjective idealism is true to religion in this sense. Unlike Kant, Fichte emphasizes this subjective idealism, in which the “I” is the world that creates non-world. For Fichte, the world is a virtual reality created by the “I.” The “I” generates the world. The self can only know itself in relation to something other than one’s self so the “I” [empirical ego] creates a “non-I,” and this “non-I” is the world. Yet there is still an Absolute Ego (universal “I”) who is God, and God creates the world as a “moral playground” where He works out His own destiny. Distinct from Kant, Fichte wishes to emphasize in his subjective idealism that there is no object without a subject. Hence the “thing-in-itself” is phrase that is severely nonsensical. It is a phrase that is abstract rather than practical.
On the other hand, religion is also something that is transcendent because it is beyond the self - it is not the self alone. The Bible, for example, claims that “...it is He who made us, and not we ourselves...” Psalms 100:3. Fittingly, Schelling emphasized objective idealism, a system of transcendental idealism in which science is incorporated. For Schelling, the pinnacle of The Great Chain of Being is a strong Self-consciousness. An Absolute Identity creates nature - evolution is the process of one true God and nature becoming self-conscious. This ultimate awareness is the Absolute Identity. God is the Absolute Identity who creates the universe. Absolute Identity is the end goal of nature. The development of matter and life is the process of God, or Nature, becoming self-conscious.
Although a kind of objectiveness supported by Schelling is evident in religion (getting outside the self), a person who is truly religious is also one who has evident character. The concern I have about Hegel is this: in his emphasizing of history it is as if he is giving history more credit than the lively personalities of those who created it. In vibrant, present, artistic, personalities there is freshness - a kind of newness the past has never completely known. This newness is so vibrant that it overpowers the past. Those who are aware of the power of this know the joy. It is this true spirit that seems to cut above time - it is, for one, a spirit of immediacy. Hegel’s world-view is Absolute Idealism. This idealism involves the fact that everything takes place in history and everything is historically conditioned so it is important to know social-historical background. Hegel recognizes a particular process of historical development, a paradigm of a particular pattern - stages of consciousness. For Hegel, religion is the example of how people appreciate holistic thinking because it binds together a fundamental world-view of God, nature, human beings and self. Humankind’s religious values have begun in the east and have progressed ultimately into the west. Religion has progressed into something more whole in progressing to Christianity. This progression has taken place in the pattern of the sun (east to west) in three main worlds. The Oriental world, dominated by Hinduism and Buddhism, interpreted that God is One and humans are nothing. This interpretation lead to a political understanding in which the Emperor is free and everybody else is not. Secondly, in the Greek-Roman world the gods have human form. This view influenced classical politics, allowing people to have more power by democracy. Finally, in the English-Germanic world, Christianity is supported and is the most liberating perspective of all because God becomes a particular person, who is Christ, and in Christ there is neither male or female, bond or free, Jew or Greek, who are discriminated against - all are free in Christ (whereas in the east, there is the “caste” system where people are discriminated against and are not all free). An important message of Christianity is that anybody can become a Christian. Here anybody can be saved (meaning to have eternal worth - making humans free from sin and sin’s wages [eternal death]). For Hegel, this view has given rise to a better democracy than the Greek-Roman world, because the whole point of history (human development) is freedom - this freedom being equal to real self-consciousness. Philosophy then, for Hegel, can look at religion (especially Christianity) and extract truth from it. In other words, philosophy is theology. It should be correctly used as a study of the divine. Religion uses representations (or picture thinking) to begin to help understand deeper concepts. The Trinity, for example, uses some family portraits: there is God the “Father” and God the “Son.” So philosophy should use representational concepts to help convey the reality of Absolute Idealism. The Trinity parallels Hegel’s philosophical concept of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis (God is like a thesis, the Holy Spirit is like the antithesis, and Christ is the synthesis). Also, religious representation parallels a major issue of society and history, and this representation is connected to the recognition of the mutual understanding needed between masters and slaves (between “oppressor” [those who have power] and the “oppressed” [those who do not have power] - in which without mutual recognition there is alienation and severe separation). Christ is the perfect example of the needed mutual understanding between God and man (Christ, being both God and man, is the true mediator and reconciler between fallen humans [without power] and Sovereign God, who is Master of the universe [yet God, who does have great power, is not the “oppressor” - at least not for those Christians who truly believe in Him because ultimately they trust Him in Christ’s name]). However, people should be careful in how they define God because some of these definitions can be alienating to humans, according to Feuerbach.
Feuerbach is insistent that religion (Christian, of particular interest) is major cause of alienation. He is a materialist who attempts to “demythologize” and deconstruct religion. For Feuerbach, all there is is matter working on itself. Theology is anthropology. Religion is the root of representational thinking. This, according to Feuerbach, is a major cause of societies’ alienation. Therefore, representational pictures found in theology should be stripped away so that people are able to see what they are actually telling us about human beings. For Feuerbach, who God is depends how people are; therefore, human beings need self-recognition rather than God-recognition. Repeated statements merely spoken such as “God is Love” or “God is our Heavenly Father” push away a necessary recognition of the human self. These kind of statements repeatedly spoken by some who are perceived “religious” demonstrate a harmful abandonment of peoples’ own humanity. Feuerbach is promoting that “the essence of God is the essence of human beings.” For Feuerbach, we manifest our love by sharing our material goods, therefore he stresses social support and the importance of community, rather than politics that overlook the oppressor and oppressed - the kind of corporate politics that ignore the poor. I would agree with Feuerback on some level. People should not support “theology” if it is false and inhumane - like large, oppressing, corporations.
However, what Feuerbach does not appreciate is that proper theology is humane and not at all alienating or distant, but rather a help, not a hinder, to communities because Christ is a caring human (he is known for healing people, for example). Caring for others is Christ-like; therefore, supporting community is important to Christianity because Christ said: “love your neighbor as yourself.” Pure religion is appreciative of this view because to care is to love - with good deeds. Therefore, by caring for others in practical love (sharing material goods, rather than paying mere lip service), religious people are being truly religious because religion rightly practiced is not alienating - rather, it is immediately caring. Religion appreciates the needs of people - it not only appreciates the material needs of people, it appreciates the spiritual needs of people by demonstrating gratitude for current art and artists, and demonstrating recognition of the true spirit of the present times. If Christians are “the light of the world” they must not hide from the community of the public. Christians must not be isolated. Christian parents should support the genuine loves of their children - the professional, artistic, dreams of their children (whether they wish to become artists, athletes or musicians, etc.) and appreciate the artistic potential their local communities have to offer - even if it means going to practice on Sundays (the Bible never states that Sunday is to be a day of rest - the constructed Sunday lie: “Christians are not supposed to work on Sundays,” is a fitting example of the force of cultism and its crippling, false, “theology” - the Sabbath was to be an example for Christians, not something to be transformed into a Sunday manipulation). Christians must support contemporary music in churches so that their churches will appeal to human beings and heal them (rather than alienate them and disease them with the sickness of false “theology,” which ignores the wholesome truth of self-respect) in contemporary times. Those churches that do not appreciate any new music are more cult-like (“cult-like” in being false theologically and in being limiting and confining of our own, present, time - and therefore, excessively reliant on the past) than honestly religious, more distant than caring, more perverse than fully alive. Old hymns should not be repeatedly sung in church - they should be used sparingly because they are written in a different history as opposed to the true and present experience of contemporary times - an experience of now, freshness, and immediacy... undenying, intimate and intense.
In conclusion, anti-religion is speculation, and is, for one, that which is impersonal. Religion is personal, humane, truly caring and heart-felt. Family is a community that is like Christianity. Brotherly love, as opposed to brotherly greed, must be supported. Parental love, as opposed to strange-parental-control must be upheld. These examples of love will require a certain level of self-sacrifice on the part of all family members. Those who are more responsible should be supportive of those who are weaker, helping them to understand better the present time - a time that must be respected and acted upon accordingly. Societies, like a functioning family, must purposefully, practically, and personally care to face the immediacy concerning the love-lacking situations of the present. Kant and the German Idealists have some good in supporting universals. However, they have done people a disservice in lacking emotional intensity (the kind of intensity that is evident in professional artists - artists who are not afraid to openly express their neighborly care for people in their works and deeds). Feuerbach was wrong to blame religion for the cause of human alienation, because it is rather a cult-like influence, like a disease (a false “theology”), that causes alienation. This disease is partly a clinging to distant tradition without true regard and appreciation for people in need and meaningful, contemporary, art and talent of our present time. Christians who have been attacked by such cultism and false “theology” should notice what Kierkegaard is saying concerning the importance of genuine individuality and choice, rather than continue living under the confinement of hurtful convention - convention that does not support the deep hunger and thirsts of Christian-artistic individuals who possess wholesome self-respect, helping love and heart-felt, caring, interests.
*The healing worth is the living Christ.
-Note from May 5, 2005: What is wrong with these
statements: "the sky is blue," "your car has four wheels,"
"the forecast today is: a chance of sunshine, cloud, wind, and
precipitation?" They are, in a way, not really statements AT ALL because
they are so obvious, general and impersonal. Unfortunately, similar
generalizations occur when pastors REPEATEDLY read the Bible or constantly
quote the Scriptures while ignoring the INTELLIGENCE of people in contemporary
times. People can read the Bible for themselves. Christians should not be required to sit for a restricted period of
time in "church" listening to what they ALREADY KNOW. Where is there
free choice in that? I would like to say that churches should now become built more like SOCIAL CENTERS and COFFEE HOUSES in local communities that should be open TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK - rather than places that are, to some extent, FALSELY formal and confined to one
sad day of the week. (It is a sad day because it is just ONE day, far apart and distant from the other six days of the week
[whereas THE DISCIPLES GATHERED DAILY]. This day is a day of alienation because
on this day there is a lack of respect for peoples' DAY BY DAY NEEDS, as well
as a lack of respect for the times of the present, and hence, a lack of
connection to peoples' lives - the so-called "formality" on SUNDAYS
is an INFLATED formality, a FALSE FORMALITY, in that it neglects Christians for
the MAJORITY of week. People merely attend "the service" and then GO HOME - only to forget about the other Christians they sat with and sang with).
New churches should be constructed in a way to be more caring and outreaching to people in contemporary times – allowing them to come and go AS THEY PLEASE. There
should be space designated for recreational activity, as well as space
designated for PRAYER and COMMUNION (where people can choose, if they wish, to sing). The main area should be for people to enjoy a coffee (or snack,
etc.), while they listen to positive music (preferable live, performed by local, Christian, artists), while video screens display the recreational activity that is going on elsewhere in the building. The music should be encouraging and heart-felt, and there should be a sound system that will allow all those participating in the recreational services to hear this healthy, wholesome, music.
